Procedural irregularity in appeal forms does not defeat maintainable proceedings, but stay requires credible proof of irrecoverable refund risk.

Use of Form CA-3 for a Collector's appeal under the Customs Act did not invalidate the appeal or stay application, because the form was a procedural filing aid and a wrong procedural reference could not defeat otherwise maintainable proceedings. Stay of the Collector (Appeals)' refund order required credible material showing real risk that the refund would be irrecoverable or that comparable undue hardship would arise. As no financial data or other reliable evidence supported that apprehension, stay relief was not justified and was refused. The order under challenge therefore remained operative pending the appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals and stay applications were invalid because the Collector had used Form CA-3 and referred to the wrong procedural basis; (ii) Whether a stay of the Collector (Appeals)' order was justified on the facts disclosed.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals and stay applications were invalid because the Collector had used Form CA-3 and referred to the wrong procedural basis.

Analysis: Form CA-3 was prescribed under the appellate rules and was intended to facilitate filing of appeals. The absence of a separate prescribed form for an appeal by the Collector under Section 129-A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 meant that use of CA-3 could not by itself invalidate the appeal. The reference to Rule 28 of the procedural rules was treated as a reference to the data and particulars required for considering stay relief, and not as a necessary invocation of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. A procedural irregularity or lacuna could not defeat otherwise maintainable proceedings.

Conclusion: The appeals and stay applications were not invalid on the ground urged by the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether a stay of the Collector (Appeals)' order was justified on the facts disclosed.

Analysis: Stay relief required a factual basis showing a real apprehension that refund, if made, would become unrecoverable and that some undue hardship or comparable prejudice would arise. No material such as financial data or other reliable evidence was produced to support the apprehension of non-recovery. The record did not establish any sufficient ground to withhold the refund ordered by the Collector (Appeals).

Conclusion: The request for stay was not justified and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The stay applications failed, and the appellate relief sought by the Department was refused, leaving the order under challenge operative.

Ratio Decidendi: A stay application cannot be granted on mere apprehension or conjecture; where no credible material is produced to show likely irrecoverability of refund or comparable hardship, and the appeal remains otherwise maintainable despite a procedural irregularity in the form used, stay relief must be refused.

---